"Smoking causes death...to your career"
 

Quit smoking or quit your job, company says
Overweight workers could be next
Thursday, January 27, 2005 Posted: 5:28 AM EST (1028 GMT)

CHICAGO, Illinois (Reuters) -- The owner of a Michigan company who forced his employees to either quit smoking or quit their jobs said on Wednesday he also wants to tell fat workers to lose weight or else.

A ban on tobacco use -- whether at home or at the workplace -- led four employees to quit their jobs last week at Okemos, Michigan-based Weyco Inc., which handles insurance claims.

The workers refused to take a mandatory urine test demanded of Weyco's 200 employees by founder and sole owner Howard Weyers, a demand that he said was perfectly legal.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/01/26/smoking.reut/index.html

interesting to hear employers taking an initiative to worker's health. About time someone stepped up and cut the fat in the american workplace. Sounds harsh to some people, but neither smokers or fat people are protected classes.

I have no problem with it. Employees that smoke spend a lot of time smoking when they should be working. I think it's also detrimental to a company's image to have smokers clustered around the entrances and exits of the building.

Overweight, out-of-shape employees will tend to have more sick days, also give off a negative image, and will cost the company more in health care.

The owner is within his rights I believe.

What if this employer said employees were not allowed to drink (off the job of course) regardless of how much? How about spending $50/week on lottery tickets? When you start disallowing things that are legal, it's a really slippery slope.

Plus, what definition of "overweight" is he using? He sounds like a total Nazi from the news story - I'd really love to see if he applies the same standards to men and women.

From an article on SHRM:

Legal experts say that few court decisions have addressed such company policies. However, they say that in states such as Michigan, where there is no smokers' rights legislation on the books, Weyco's policy and practices might be legal.

"There's legal discrimination and there's illegal discrimination," said Peter J. Petesch, an employment attorney who is a partner at Ford & Harrison LLP in Washington, D.C. Unless the company's actions can be shown to violate a specific state or federal law—such as discriminating against a protected class, on the basis of race or religion or the like—it might be difficult for employees and
applicants to challenge them successfully in court.

"Although we might feel a sense of moral outrage when a class of people is discriminated against," said Petesch, "it may very well be legal. There have been common-law theories advanced" in the effort to have groups such as smokers protected by job bias laws, but "they have not necessarily been successful."

Weyco's Climes, a former smoker himself who knows "how hard it is to quit," said that "our legal counsel reviewed this very closely."

However, Edwin G. Foulke, an employment attorney with the Greenville, S.C, office of law firm Jackson Lewis LLP and a former chair of the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission, said Weyco's actions could raise issues under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

"I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody litigate this issue," he stated. Jury members weighing such a policy "might ask themselves, 'Is this really fair?' " he said.

Twenty-nine states have smokers' rights laws. At the same time, many states have laws banning smoking in most workplaces, setting up the potential for confusion and conflict about what workers can do—and where. Some laws and company policies extend smoking bans to outdoor property such as parking lots, and some even try to keep people who have been smoking in the previous two hours from entering a building and bringing some of the haze in with them.

According to the National Law Journal, the Union Pacific railroad company announced last year that it was implementing a no-smoking policy for all employees, both on and off company property. The firm said it questions potential hires about smoking. And Alaska Airlines reportedly has a similar policy, requiring job applicants to pass a nicotine test.

The National Law Journal noted that in a 1987 court case the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the right of the Oklahoma City Fire Department to have a no-smoking policy, finding that the rule had a legitimate purpose in promoting health and safety.

But at a private-sector employer whose workers tend to work in offices, a policy barring all smokers appears to be "extremely drastic," said Peter P. Fornal, president of Human Resource Consultants in East Greenwich, R.I., and a member of the Society for Human Resource Management's Employee Relations Panel.

Yeah, I agree the company has the right to make such policies as far as employment criteria/

However, some might view this as discrimination or intrusion of their privacy. What they do at home is their own business-- as long as they don't bring it to work.

What if they ban other substances...like alcohol [like 33girl suggested]?

If that were to happen, the employees always have the choice to work there or not. Personally, I'd enjoy an atmosphere like that.

I seem to remember reading earlier that he was willing to give vouchers to his employees to pay them for the cost of joining a gym.

Banning alcohol is different, banning ALCOHOLISM would be the literal analog here. The issue is with the endemic detrimental effects of smoking to the workplace, in the form of lost days, image, and the hypocrisy of charging more for insurance for something 50% of employees do themselves.

Now, alcohol in moderation has no such ill effects - if anything, it's positive. If the employer feels that alcohol may be a problem, and this has been supported by medical experts, most likely testing as proposed with smoking in this case would be perfectly legal.

Now, just because it's legal, that obviously doesn't make it any less invasive. However, employers are under no obligations to treat their employees in a certain fashion, except as dictated by law. It's just like pay scale - if you don't like it or can't live on it, you don't take the job. Honestly, if you can't or don't want to quit smoking . . . don't, and go find another job. Many jobs have lifestyle considerations attached, and while I agree with the conceptual understanding of the legal 'slippery slope' I just don't think it applies here yet.

Now, it's not a far jaunt to get there - it'll be interesting to see how this develops.

What if he said you weren't allowed to motorcycle ride or sky dive because it was risky? Would you enjoy that?

How about if you weren't permitted to do anything involved with your fraternity, because fraternities are huge insurance risks don't cha know, and they might get sued and if people know you're a member it would make the company look bad. Or if you were told you weren't allowed to join either the John Birch Society or Greenpeace (take your pick).

The gym vouchers were for $45 - I don't know what it's like in MI, but that's pretty much what it costs to walk in the door at most decent gyms around here.

They're a third party administrator, not a carrier. They do not set the insurance rates, they try to get the best options for their clients from the available carriers.

What TPAs and carriers do in their free time has nothing to do with the rates companies are charged. It's not an issue of hypocrisy. Joe's Coal Company full of 60 year olds is going to pay lots more for insurance than Joe's Office Supply Store full of 25 year olds simply because of the obvious differences in what they do on the job. There's only so much the TPA or broker can do to remedy that.

They can encourage their clients to develop wellness programs, but I think that telling their clients to use this same policy would be professional suicide.

I can see how this is a "slippery slope", but I have to say that I somewhat agree with him. He did go a little far saying employees cannot even smoke in their personal life off the company clock, but...

I think non-smokers will agree with me that smokers take far many more breaks than the non-smokers, as well as when they return to their work environments everyone around them can smell them - trust me on this one. Also, I know at my company it is a constant battle to get the smokers to 1. smoke in the specified area and 2. place their butts in the provided containers instead of just stomping them on the ground and leaving them. Our VP of HR has come within days of having to make our office a non-smoking one because the owner WAS NOT happy about the disrespect to his building and grounds.

As for the gym, if my company would give me a $45 voucher it would cover the cost of a monthly membership and then some. I would be very happy, and put it to good use.

Too bad they couldn't get away with firing women who plan to get pregnant.

Yeah, cause, you know, to add to the blanket, every fat person is a lazy, slow, unmotivated slob that should be hidden from society right? God forbid it's a medical thing.... :rolleyes:

Yeah yeah, I know what you're gonna say before you even say it....I'm just saying not all obese people fit this stereotype....

Many contracts include clauses of this type - even professional athletes have contracts voided for doing things like that. Again, it's a massively dick thing to do to employees, but it's probably legal - and it will alienate some, but it doesn't infringe on their right to work, really.

This really rings as specious to me - these aren't parallels to smoking, neither in scope nor scale. However, again - not protected groups, just dick moves to make.

I'll get anecdotal here, and say that in my current position I would not be allowed to work here if I joined Greenpeace, and it would be perfectly legal and justifiable (NDA and anonymity concerns) - and I'm sorry, I'll never do that again, I hate anecdotal evidence.

Eh, even if it's just paying the initiation fees, it's a start. I do think, however, that punishing for obesity may be (legally) over the line.

Saying that, on a grander scale than you and I here, 33, it troubles me that Americans demand insurance (and cheap, at that) from their employers, but there is outcry over employers taking steps to ensure their employees' health in a much more active (and some would say over-active) manner. We've truly gotten to the point of sloth, where we're burning it on both ends . . .

Again, this is a group protected by existing workplace laws and regulations, and not a valid comparison to smokers.

As was said, I think that while this move could be seen as invasive, I don't see how it's illegal. If his workers are that bothered by the rule, then they are certainly free to seek other employment.

While it's a big move, I again don't see how it could be called illegal. Very interesting, and if opposing litigation fails, I wouldn't be surprised to see more companies try something like this.

Saying a pro athlete or actor can't do this or that is quite a bit different than saying Joe Blow can't. If Brad Pitt or Donovan McNabb goes skydiving and dies, it has an impact on everyone who was either working on Brad's latest movie or everyone affiliated w/ the Eagles. We're talking hundreds of people. If Joe Blow goes skydiving and dies, well, the company pays the death benefit to his family and they're done. The company doesn't fold because of it. There's simply no comparison.

There is such a thing as Key Man coverage where you can take out higher insurance on the CEO and such so the co doesn't go under if he dies. However, all companies should have a succession plan in place. Any CEO who doesn't do this is remarkably short-sighted. Point being that there is no insurance against running your business crappily.

The fact of the matter is that the longer people live, and the more ways we invent for people to live longer, the higher insurance premiums will be. I've seen groups full of retirees that are still on insurance that a generation ago, probably wouldn't have existed - they would all be dead.

Uh yeah, that's why I said too bad they couldn't get away with it, but thanks for enlightening me about workplace laws.

Smoking has side affects that do affect your work. Hey if you get sick more often that results in less work.

Either way, it's a free country and the guy has the right to hire or fire those based on preference since it's not hate and they aren't entitled to special rights.

-Rudey

Gosh I wish my old job would have realized that you can fire someone for smoking. I think at least 50% of my co-workers smoked. They would all go outside every twenty minutes and light up. And then the admin would complain about how messy we were with cigarette butts.

But as a non-smoker, it's no fun wanting to get some fresh air outside and to find that half the office is outside lighting up. :rolleyes:

I actually heard on the radio this morning that the obese actually can make up to $4,000/year less than their not-obese counterparts.

Obviously I'm not going to lecture anyone w/ a JD on workplace law, but I was pointing out that your post was completely irrelevant to the topic in order to prevent it from being an issue for others (aka trying to stay on-topic). Why did you even bring it up?

From the article:


There are many unanswered question regarding this policy. One of them being regulation. Would it cost them $$ to do mandatory urine test on ALL employees? random urine test? Does anyone know how long Nicotine stays in your system?

Also, how frequently will they test? what is the cost of rehiring and retraining new employees when old ones are dishonest and break the policy?

Nicotine In Blood
 

Question: How long does nicotine remain in your system(if you are trying to quit) how long after you quit would it not show up in blood or urine?

Answer: Nicotine will be out of your system in 48 hours or so. It is usually detectable in urine for 3-4 days depending on the sensitivity of the test.


How long does nicotine stay in your blood stream? Better yet, how long can it be detected in your blood stream?

Nicotine has a half-life of two hours, meaning that half of the nicotine in your body is gone in two hours. It depends on how much you have taken in as to how long it would remain in your body, but theoretically there would not be much in your system after a day or so. I do not know of any employment drug tests for nicotine at this time.

Re: Nicotine In Blood
 

Thanx for the quick reply.

Also, there is the issue of second-hand smoke. What if an employee lives with a smoker? Second-hand smoke should have stronger nicotine level, as it does not pass through the filter of the ciggerrette. How will the company control that aspect?

I am sure the health effects of second hand smoke will creep into this,I too wonder how the employer will address these issues like respiratory illnesses, lung and heart disease from 2nd hand smoke.

Second Hand Smoke
Question: How bad can smoke effect someone who doesn’t smoke when they’re in a well vented room with a smoker.

Answer: A lot of debate here. There are two potential effects. The first is the immediate effect. It is clear that children exposed to smoking parents will have higher rates of respiratory illness. Also, the susceptibility of the non-smoker to asthma in particular will vary widely. Some patients will have severe asthma triggered by minimal smoking -others with no trigger with heavy smokers. Long term there appears to be a higher risk of lung cancer and heart disease in spouses of smokers; but, there is heavy debate here.


Edited to include:
The article I posted below says that cotinine levels are a marker for smoke exposure in non-smoking workers

American Lung Assoc
 

www.lungusa.org has some interesting stats



Workplaces nationwide are going smoke-free to provide clean indoor air and protect employees from the harmful, life-threatening effects of secondhand smoke. According to a Gallup poll, 95 percent of Americans, smokers and nonsmokers, now believe companies should either ban smoking totally in the workplace or restrict it to separately ventilated areas.1


Employers have a legal right to restrict smoking in the workplace or to implement a totally smoke-free workplace policy. Exceptions may arise in the case of collective bargaining agreements with unions.2

A smoking employee costs the employer at least 1,000 dollars per year in total excess direct and indirect health care costs, compared with a similar nonsmoking employee.3

Some employers have been forcing smoking employees to pay higher premiums for medical coverage. However, no organization appears to keep statistics on those criteria.4

Employers that hire smokers bear indirect costs, including more employee absenteeism, decreased productivity on the job and increased early retirement due to ill health.5

Workers have been awarded unemployment, disability and worker's compensation benefits for illness and loss of work due to exposure to secondhand smoke.6

Tobacco smoke is a major source of pollution in most indoor air environments, particularly office work sites, and has been classified as a Group A carcinogen by the U.S. EPA. Tobacco smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, both gas and particulate matter.7

The toxins in tobacco smoke kill over 440,000 people per year in the United States. Secondhand smoke causes over 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually, as well as exacerbation of lung disease in nonsmoking adults and respiratory problems in children. Secondhand smoke also causes 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.8

A recent study found that people who were exposed to smoke in the workplace were 17 percent more likely to develop lung cancer than those who were not exposed.9

Involuntary smoking has many non-fatal but serious effects; breathing secondhand smoke makes the eyes and nose burn, and can cause headaches and nausea in nonsmokers. These irritants can have a major impact on employees' morale, productivity and sense of well being.10

Forty-nine states and the District of Columbia have some restriction on smoking in public places. Of these states, 45 restrict smoking in government workplaces, and 25 have extended those limitations to private sector workplaces.11

In August 1997, President Clinton signed an executive order requiring federal buildings to become smoke-free.
Nearly 70 percent of the United States workforce worked under a smoke-free policy in 1999.12

Prohibiting smoking in the workplace can have an immediate and dramatic impact on the health of workers and patrons. A study conducted in Helena, MT, found that the number of heart attacks fell by 40 percent during a six-month period in 2002 when the city's comprehensive smokefree air law was in effect.13

Bans on indoor smoking have not had a negative effect on the economy. In Florida, the statewide smoke-free law, which took effect July 1, 2003, has not hurt sales or employment in the hotel, restaurant and tourism industries.14

In Delaware, there has been an increase in the number of restaurants and taproom licenses since the smoking ban took effect.15

In New York City, a study found that business receipts for restaurants and bars has increased 8.7 percent, employment has risen (2,800 seasonally adjusted jobs), and cotinine levels (a marker for smoke exposure) in non-smoking workers decreased by 85 percent since the smoking ban was put in place.16
For more information on tobacco, please review the Tobacco Morbidity and Mortality Trend Report in the Data and Statistics section of our website or call the American Lung Association at 1-800-LUNG-USA (1-800-586-4872).

Actually my life insurance policy with prudential questioned me about these activities. If I do them, I wouldn't qualify for a certain level of coverage. If insurance companies can do it, why not the workplace?

It is indeed intrusive, but let's not attack a radical decision because you are afraid he'll open the door to any and all other affairs.

Right now all he is attacking smoking and overweight people, two very huge problems in the workplace. Until he suggests no sex, drugs, and rock 'n roll, don't create any ridiculous hypos.

I'm fine with this. Less competition for me.

I agree that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. After he's done with those who smoke and who are overweight, then who? A diabetic who eats a donut? Someone with high cholesterol who eats an egg for breakfast? Someone with high blood pressure who eats a bag of salty potato chips?

Also, what if these employees DO quit smoking using the aid of Nicotrol, Nicorette or the patch? Won't they have nicotine in their systems even though they aren't smoking?

If employers want to ban smoking on their premises, during work hours, that's fine. It frightens me to think that an employer can own you all day and night, every day and night. They get 8.5 hours a day out of me, sometimes more if in case of emergency, but no pay in the world is high enough for an employer to own me! My time is MY time.

Dee

I agree with this, and also think that unless you're actually impaired on the job, whether you do illegal drugs at home, on your own time, is not your employer's business. Of course I'm free to choose not to work for anyone who conducts drug testing, so I don't think it's really a problem.

In articles around here (this was originally news in the Detroit area last week), the owner of the company equated this to drug testing. Perhaps I'm paranoid, but I see a definite progression from drug testing to nicotine testing to weight testing.. what's next? If too many employers take on these types of policies, you may not have a choice any longer.

If you know your argument is weak, why raise the objection?

People with disabilities are protected. People who are fat because they are lazy and like to eat pizza with their ice cream are not.

Again, an employer can require certain lifestyle choices from their employees as long as they don't violate the law. The employee always has the choice to quit. I don't see how this is particuarly invasive or wrong. If nothing else, it provides the employee with real incentive to make positive lifestyle choices.

I'm just gonna ask again, are you implying that ALL fat people are like this? Cause if you think so, you're wrong.


Whatever man, I'm gonna go tip the scale....

If fatness is caused by a disability, (law students/lawyers, correct me if I'm wrong), the individual is protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act.

If it's not caused by a medical condition, then what else can cause it? The fat fairy?

He's stupid.

Cigarettes do not impair your judgement or vision or make you think there is a pink unicorn sitting at the desk next to you. :)

Funny that i'm reading this thread and a coworker walks past after her 3rd smoke break of the morning...

None of the attorneys here smoke... but the office manager does so they're fairly sympathetic to smokers

lol.

I still think they should ban alcohol, instead. It does contribute to weight gain for some individual..and does impair your productivity (say..if you have a hangover from the night before).



ETA: I think policies should be REASONABLE...and this policy discriminating against smokers and overweight individuals is not reasonable, even though it is legal.

Again, if the worker finds it unreasonable, they should quit.

Well, that's stating the obvious, isnt it?

there's no law against unreasonableness. If there were, most of you all would be in jail ;)